Other Voices Raised in Support of War : Backing: Polls have shown many Americans favor President Bush’s action, but now more are beginning to speak out and are organizing rallies.

“I’m a hawk,” the man said, as if he really needed to say so. In such a setting what else could he be?

A World War I-vintage rifle hung suspended above the bar where Ron Wyatt spoke. American flags draped the walls. A bomb casing hung from the ceiling. Battle helmets and medals and photographs were everywhere. “I personally feel that if he (Bush) gave a deadline, he damn well better do something,” Wyatt said.

It was a good place to find supporters of America’s role in the Persian Gulf War, and yet an untypical one as well. Despite polls that show support of the war to be overwhelming so far, most of the backing is much less visible and less obvious than Wyatt’s.

“We’re the silent majority right now in many respects,” said Joe Eise, another supporter of the President’s decision. “But I think that’s going to change. As this thing goes on I think people are going to start speaking out more in support of what’s going on.”

There already are signs of that. Small gatherings of Americans have appeared spontaneously in some communities, waving placards at passing motorists, and sales at flag stores are up.

In Sunland, about two dozen people gathered in Sunland Park carrying large American flags and signs saying “Bush Is Right, We Have to Fight.” Passing motorists gave victory signs and honked.

An unorganized group of about 40 gathered in front of the Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace in Yorba Linda carrying red, white and blue balloons and placards with such slogans as “Freedom Is Paid For,” and “Kick Butt & Hurry Home.”

“There are too many anti-war protesters, and it brings down the morale of our troops,” said Pam Shepherd, 40, who led the demonstration. “They need to know we love and support them. That’s what America’s all about.”

In Chicago, the Yellow Ribbon Support Group at University Hospital began laying plans for celebratory welcomes when American troops return home.

Today, St. Louis supporters of military action plan to stage their second rally downtown. The first hastily staged demonstration, on Thursday, which drew only 25 people, was overshadowed by a much larger peace rally the same day in which 23 people were arrested.

At the bar of the 94th Aero Squadron restaurant, just down the road from the headquarters of McDonnell Douglas Corp., which manufactures fighter jets such as the F-15 Eagle fighter and F-15E fighter-bomber, finding supporters of the attack is as easy as picking off make-believe MIGs in a video game.

“I think there is a certain pride among the locals that their product is being featured on the nightly news,” said a 30-year-old McDonnell Douglas engineer who was laid off Monday. The former engineer, who would not give his name, said he supports the bombing missions but doubts that his support would last if it turns into a drawn-out war. He also doubted that the war would help restore defense industry jobs.

“I can’t see them hiring more people,” said his friend, a 28-year-old McDonnell test engineer who also remained anonymous. “It might help in averting more layoffs, but I can’t see them hiring people back.”

Don Schafroth, a Southwestern Bell employee who was having a beer at the bar with Wyatt, said he supports military action against Iraq because “the U.N. has got to be able to back up what it says.” If the world body sets a deadline and backs down, then its effectiveness as a peace-keeping force would be diminished, he said.

That opinion was shared by Eise, an accountant at Cobro Corp., a small St. Louis-based defense contractor that services some of the aircraft being used in the Persian Gulf.

“Kuwait was a member of the U.N. for a long time,” he said. “If the U.N. is going to work, it should be used to protect members like that.”

He said he hopes the military action in the gulf is “a precedent for the future,” that the United States becomes increasingly aggressive in protecting smaller nations.

“I know we haven’t always done it in the past,” he said, speaking in particular of Eastern European countries that were swallowed up by the Soviet Union. But he said the United States stance should be: “If you’re going to take a country you’re going to have to face the consequences of your actions.”

Wyatt, the self-proclaimed hawk, is ardently supportive of Bush’s decision with one important exception: He doesn’t think the U.S. attacks necessarily should be limited only to military targets.

“If push comes to shove that option (of bombing civilian targets) should be open to us, and also, the nuclear option should be open,” he said.

Before U.S. forces went into action, both Schafroth and Wyatt, who also works at Bell, knew a fellow employee who criticized Bush for getting the United States involved. Since the attack, however, he has supported the mission, both men said.

“Opinion was more divided (before the attack) than it is now,” Wyatt said.